Criminal law, Free Speech, Media

Datz A Wrap: Suffolk Drops Charges Against Cameraman After Abusive Arrest

Criminal charges have been formally dropped against New York news cameraman Phil Datz who was arrested at a crime scene last month. The video of the clearly abusive arrest was placed on YouTube (below) and shows an officer threatening and then arresting Datz. This is part of a continuing trend of officers arresting citizens and reporters for filming them in public — acts found to be unconstitutional but remain clearly tolerated (if not encouraged) in some jurisdictions.

On the film, Datz is shown a far distance from the crime scene – the end of a high-speed chase. The officer confronts him on the street in Bohemia, on Long Island. Even after Datz complies with an order to move away (and goes a block away) the sergeant again confronts him and arrests him. The officer sped down the street and jumps out of the car to arrest Datz.

Notably, the officer states “I’ve been doing this for 30 years and there’s nothing you can hold over my head; go away.” If so, he appears a bit of a slow learner on the rights of citizens and media. What is troubling is that, yet again, the officer does not appear to be subject to any discipline for the abusive arrest. The most that Police Commissioner Richard Dormer said was that all officers would receive refresher training on dealing with the media. Really? This video shows an officer who is irate and abusive toward the reporter. Is that a simple lack of training after 30 years?

I realize that officers can be pumped up after a crash and we have to keep in mind that these are humans trying to do an often super-human job. However, the latter pursuit of the reporter down the block moves this beyond an officer who loses judgment and control, in my view. Unless officers are sanctioned for such conduct, it is likely to continue. I do not believe the officer should be fired, but some discipline is warranted.

19 thoughts on “Datz A Wrap: Suffolk Drops Charges Against Cameraman After Abusive Arrest”

  2. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state’s wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.

    MaObamaland. Who wouold have guessed???

  3. Noah V,

    “Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal.” (according to the following article) Details via the following link.

    I’m not a lawyer, though…. There are many good ones around here who might might want to weigh in… but, on the fly, here’s a place to start:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/151806/15_years_in_prison_for_taping_the_cops_how_eavesdropping_laws_are_taking_away_our_best_defense_against_police_brutality?page=entire

    Excerpt:

    In at least three states, it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer, even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists. The legal justification is usually based on the warped interpretation of existing wiretapping or eavesdropping laws with statutes against obstructing law enforcement sometimes cited.

    Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland are among the 12 states where all parties must consent for a recording to be legal. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested and charged with a felony. Most all-party consent states (except Illinois and Massachusetts) include a “privacy provision” that says a violation occurs only when the offended party has a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. This is meant to protect TV news crews and people who record public meetings — where it is obvious to all that recording is underway — from accidentally committing a felony.

    Massachusetts and Illinois are the only states that do not recognize an expectation-to-privacy provision to their all-party consent laws. While courts in Massachusetts have generally held that secretly recording police is illegal, recording them openly is not. Illinois, on the other hand, is the only state where the legislature specifically amended the state’s wiretapping law to make it illegal to record on-duty police officers without their consent, even in public.

  4. I read somewhere thate some states or municipalities have recently created ordinances or laws that criminalize photgraphing or taping Police Officers. Anybody aware of places currently doing that?

  5. My lawsuit (albeit medical malpractice) was in the courts for 14 years. They say 2 seconds after a dog or cat does something wrong it is too late to reprimand them; they don’t know why they are being yelled at or punished. Don’t know that a lawsuit would be much better here. By the time it winds its way thru the courts the officer and the powers that be will probably be long gone and the taxpayers will be the ones to pay.
    Carol
    ://apainedlife.blogspot.com/

  9. Sorry to be cynical, but I’m pleasantly surprised that the videotape/data storage on the camera wasn’t “misplaced” while in police custody. (In Chicago, in the aftermath of a couple of police-behaving-badly incidents, other officers have shown up at the bar (or wherever) to “secure” the security camera tapes from the establishment. Whether they were acting as part of the official investigation or not was not made clear….)

    It might be worth noting here that the criminal/non-political looters in the UK have started attacking photographers/videographers, and in places like Lybia and Syria, government troops target the press to suppress coverage of their actions.

    Long Island’s finest are nothing like Syrian government torturers, but they are choosing to put themselves in with some unpleasant company.

    The “bad cops” put the lives of good cops in danger. Their fellow officers need to get over the “omerta” attitudes and clean up their own houses for their own sake.

  11. I agree with Arthur’s idea as well. There is no law against filming an accident scene and the city should be held responsible for their illegal actions. If the States Atttorney won’t file charges and the Police Department won’t discipline this illegal behavior, then make them dig deep into their pockets and they just may change their behavior.

  13. A good jury award of damages in a civil suit will do wonders for police misconduct. When it becomes obvious that the bad cops cost more than they are worth, the cities will make sure that they are gone. I think one million dollars would be just for this case. THAT will get their attention.

  14. Tony Ryan, who owns Stringer, said his company is considering a lawsuit. According to him, this is the third time in the last two three years that one of his employees has gotten arrested at the scene of a crime.

    This was a card carrying member of the press

  15. There are enough stories in the news about police abuse regarding photography and video to dismiss idea the officer not knowing the law. Where are the civil rights attorneys?

Comments are closed.